Greatest Limited Overs All-rounder of all time, tournament/voting thread

[viriya]

Of course it doesn't. It goes against your argument

Just because he averges 35 bowling away as a spinner doesn't preclude him from being the best all-rounder..

 

[smash84]

He plays a majority (?) Of his matches abroad where his performance becomes ordinary abd it still makes him the best all rounder ever?

 

[Dan]

What's Shakib's economy away from home? Being a finger spinner you can cop him being less of a strike weapon overseas, so long as he's keeping it tight and building pressure (see also: Daniel Vettori)

 

[viriya]

He plays a majority (?) Of his matches abroad where his performance becomes ordinary abd it still makes him the best all rounder ever?

He's basically Murali at home and an above average container away (50-50 split of matches). For an all-rounder who averages 35 @ 80 with the bat (and doesn't really depend on NOs). that's pretty great imo. Also note that he never gets to play vs his own **** team.

What's Shakib's economy away from home? Being a finger spinner you can cop him being less of a strike weapon overseas, so long as he's keeping it tight and building pressure (see also: Daniel Vettori)

His econ at home is 4, away its 4.7. Very respectable in this era imo.

 

[smash84]

What's Shakib's economy away from home? Being a finger spinner you can cop him being less of a strike weapon overseas, so long as he's keeping it tight and building pressure (see also: Daniel Vettori)

yeah but there's no way you'd consider him the greatest all rounder of all time in ODIs with that kind of performance given that he's up against bowlers who are strike bowlers and very capable batsmen themselves.

 

[smash84]

He's basically Murali at home and an above average container away (50-50 split of matches). For an all-rounder who averages 35 @ 80 with the bat (and doesn't really depend on NOs). that's pretty great imo. Also note that he never gets to play vs his own **** team.

He ain't no Murali

besides if he played against bangers themselves then those performances would have been heavily discounted in any event. Btw that could have been disaster for him too. Since he would have played bangers in bangladesh so he wouldn't have done well against them since bangers are pretty good at home. And he isn't that good away from home so he would have been screwed both home and away

 

[viriya]

yeah but there's no way you'd consider him the greatest all rounder of all time in ODIs with that kind of performance given that he's up against bowlers who are strike bowlers and very capable batsmen themselves.

You are ignoring how much better Shakib is as a batsman compared to Imran/Kapil.

Shakib vs Imran batting for example: if you check averages you might think they are close, and you might ignore SR diff as something to do with era. But check the not outs - Imran has almost double the not outs with the same number of innings.. So Shakib is an actual front line batsman vs Imran who just came to finish/stay not out comparatively. Also note the 6 hundred vs 1 hundred disparity.

The point here is that while Imran is a better bowler, he is not ahead enough in that department to counter the fact that Shakib is a much better batsman imo.

 

[smash84]

You are ignoring how much better Shakib is as a batsman compared to Imran/Kapil.

Shakib vs Imran batting for example: if you check averages you might think they are close, and you might ignore SR diff as something to do with era. But check the not outs - Imran has almost double the not outs with the same number of innings.. So Shakib is an actual front line batsman vs Imran who just came to finish/stay not out comparatively. Also note the 6 hundred vs 1 hundred disparity.

The point here is that while Imran is a better bowler, he is not ahead enough in that department to counter the fact that Shakib is a much better batsman imo.

The not outs do not prove that a batsman is not a frontline batsman. Did you even watch Imran bat? He was a solid middle order batsman. He almost won us the 1987 WC semi final against Aus. His wicket was pivotal not to mention his outstanding bowling at the death. Can't expect Shakib to match anything like that. This silly not out argument is like saying Dhoni and Bevan are not frontline batsmen because they have so many not outs.

And now that you mention SRs its funny that Shakib's SR is only 80 given that he bats in this era Imran retired 25 years ago and he still has a SR of 73. Not only that Kapil has a SR of 95. So yeah I won't try to explain away the SRs because of the era

I wish you had actually seen Kapil and Imran play then you could have at least made a slightly more sensible judgment.

 

[viriya]

The not outs do not prove that a batsman is not a frontline batsman. Did you even watch Imran bat? He was a solid middle order batsman. He almost won us the 1987 WC semi final against Aus. His wicket was pivotal not to mention his outstanding bowling at the death. Can't expect Shakib to match anything like that. This silly not out argument is like saying Dhoni and Bevan are not frontline batsmen because they have so many not outs.

And now that you mention SRs its funny that Shakib's SR is only 80 given that he bats in this era Imran retired 25 years ago and he still has a SR of 73. Not only that Kapil has a SR of 95. So yeah I won't try to explain away the SRs because of the era

I wish you had actually seen Kapil and Imran play then you could have at least made a slightly more sensible judgment.

I don't know why you are trying to prove that Imran was a good batsman using anecdotal instances. Just because he won a WC semi doesn't automatically mean his record speaks for itself. The not out argument doesn't work for Dhoni because he has a high SR, and it is used against Bevan.

The fact is as a finisher his SR isn't especially high, and one ton doesn't make him a frontline batsman.

Shakib's 80 SR is more than respectable when you consider that his 35+ average is not dependent on not outs and he has made 6 tons (an actual frontline batsman compared to Imran and Kapil who only made one ton each).

 

[smash84]

I don't know why you are trying to prove that Imran was a good batsman using anecdotal instances. Just because he won a WC semi doesn't automatically mean his record speaks for itself. The not out argument doesn't work for Dhoni because he has a high SR, and it is used against Bevan.

The fact is as a finisher his SR isn't especially high, and one ton doesn't make him a frontline batsman.

Shakib's 80 SR is more than respectable when you consider that his 35+ average is not dependent on not outs and he has made 6 tons (an actual frontline batsman compared to Imran and Kapil who only made one ton each).

He never won the SF. Pakistan lost but his contribution was outstanding.

I am using anecdotal evidence along with stats. Not just mindlessly using stats like you.

Imran wasn't a finisher either. FFS if you haven't seen a batsman play at least read up on them. He was a pretty versatile batsman for the era capable of batting up or down the order although he was a slow starter so better suited up the order but his bowling workload meant that he should bat down the order. Kapil was more of a hitting batsman down the order.

A strike of 80 today is definitely not more than respectable. Your mindless usage of stats is blinding you to the fact that Shakib while better than Cronje and Steve Waugh (as an all rounder) is below the likes of Flintoff, Imran, Kapil, Kallis

 

[weldone]

I am with smali on this debate ftr.

 

[Red]

Emphatically disagree with both statements.

Taking wickets is the most important job for any bowler. And while similar economy rates, Kallis is still better. Regarding the batting, Kallis is better in every way except in SR. Thus your entire premise is that Symonds was better because he had a better SR.

Kallis always gets hammered because of his SR. Context however is important. The entire SA team was built around Kallis for a good ten years because it was not until the late 2000`s that we started getting players of the calibre of Smith, Amla and AB. Symonds played in a team with Hayden, Gilchrist, Pointing Waugh. If he failed there where plenty of other players to pick up the slack. Not so with Kallis for most of his career. That tends to make players a bit more cautious.

You cannot seriously argue that Kallis was as good an ODI batsman as Symonds. I mean come on….

And you can't argue that because Symonds played in a better team with better players around him who weren't chokers, that Kallis was a better batsman.

 

[harsh.ag]

You cannot seriously argue that Kallis was as good an ODI batsman as Symonds. I mean come on…

Top order batsmen with great averages who scored fast are absolute greats like Sachin, Viv, Kohli etc Best of both worlds. And I know you won't compare Symonds' batting favourably with theirs. So, that means for a top order batsman to be comparable to Symonds, he will have to either have a low average and high SR or a high average and a low SR. Kallis is the latter.

 

[StephenZA]

You cannot seriously argue that Kallis was as good an ODI batsman as Symonds. I mean come on….

And you can't argue that because Symonds played in a better team with better players around him who weren't chokers, that Kallis was a better batsman.

On your second point, I never said he was a better batsmen because he did not play in as good a team as Symonds, I was pointing out that his SR was lower because he could not play with the freedom Symonds played with; he played a different role in a different team.

As to your first point, yes I believe Kallis was a better batsmen...

 

[Red]

Kallis was good at his role.

Symonds was great at his.

 

[Red]

As to your first point, yes I believe Kallis was a better batsmen...

Dont confuse tests (where Kallis was definitely an ATG) with ODIs though (where he wasn't at all).

 

[harsh.ag]

Kallis was good at his role.

Symonds was great at his.

Kallis was fantastic at his role. Symonds' role was more flashy and hence got the better coverage. The 15-35 overs period is the most "boring" of an ODI and that's where Kallis ate.

 

[Red]

Top order batsmen with great averages who scored fast are absolute greats like Sachin, Viv, Kohli etc Best of both worlds. And I know you won't compare Symonds' batting favourably with theirs. So, that means for a top order batsman to be comparable to Symonds, he will have to either have a low average and high SR or a high average and a low SR. Kallis is the latter.

This doesn't make sense. Kallis was a top order batsman with a SR of 72. Ponting and Lara had a SR of 80 in the same era in the same batting position. And their averages were basically the same (sure, Kallis' average was slightly higher), but an 8 point differential in SR equates to 24 more/less runs in a team total.

Kallis batted too slow in ODIs. You can argue that he had to because of the team's personnel (as Stphn is) but I don't buy that. Gary Kirsten, who was a generation before Kallis, had the same SR as Kallis.

 

[harsh.ag]

This doesn't make sense. Kallis was a top order batsman with a SR of 72. Ponting and Lara had a SR of 80 in the same era in the same batting position. And their averages were basically the same (sure, Kallis' average was slightly higher), but an 8 point differential in SR equates to 24 more/less runs in a team total.

Yeah, but Ponting and Lara are ODI ATGs. That's the whole point. You aren't gonna find many people comparing Symonds' batting favourably with Ponting. That's why Kallis is very much comparable to Symonds.

 

[Red]

Yeah, but Ponting and Lara are ODI ATGs. That's the whole point. You aren't gonna find many people comparing Symonds' batting favourably with Ponting. That's why Kallis is very much comparable to Symonds.

How are they comparable? Kallis isn't an ATG in his role, but Symonds is...